Search Decisions

Decision Text

AF | BCMR | CY2010 | BC-2010-04322
Original file (BC-2010-04322.txt) Auto-classification: Denied
 

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

 AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 

 

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2010-04322 

 

 COUNSEL: 

 

 HEARING DESIRED: NO 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: 

 

His general (under honorable conditions) discharge 
characterization be changed to honorable and his grade of airman 
basic (AB/E-1) be changed to senior airman (SrA/E-4). 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: 

 

His discharge characterization is contradictory in comparison to 
his record of conduct during military service. He was a good 
airman and is proud to have served. He has been employed for 
the last 25 years and has recently lost his job. Since his 
discharge and after many years of being employed, he did not 
realize the impact the discharge characterization would have on 
employment opportunities or he would have requested it earlier. 

 

In support of his appeal, the applicant provides a copy of his 
DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active 
Duty, issued in conjunction with his 21 Dec 83 separation and 
extracts from his military personnel record, including training 
certificates and performance evaluations. 

 

The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at 
Exhibit A. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

STATEMENT OF FACTS: 

 

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force on 12 Feb 80 for 
a period of four years. He was progressively promoted to the 
grade of SrA, with an effective date and Date of Rank of 
1 Feb 83. 

 

The squadron commander initiated administrative discharge action 
against the applicant, on 6 Dec 83, for a pattern of misconduct. 
The specific reasons for the proposed action were: 

 

 1. On or about 1 Jul 80, the applicant was cited for 
speeding in his privately-owned vehicle (POV), 68 miles per hour 


(MPH) in a 35 MPH zone and failure to yield. He was arrested by 
civilian authorities and received a Letter of Reprimand (LOR). 

 

 2. He received two TAC Forms 27, Record of Individual 
Counseling, for being late two days in a row and failure to meet 
AFR 35-10 standards. 

 

 3. He received an Article 15 for wrongful use of 
tetrahydrocannabinol, a scheduled I controlled substance. His 
punishment consisted of a suspended reduction in grade to airman 
first class (A1C/E-3) and correctional custody for 30 days. 

 

 4. He received an Article 15 for being derelict in 
the performance of his duties by willfully failing to provide 
his own urine specimen. For this offense, his suspended 
reduction to A1C was vacated and he was reduced to AB. 

 

 5. He received a letter from Social Actions for 
failure to rehabilitate. 

 

On 7 Dec 83, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived 
his right to submit statements in his own behalf. The staff 
judge advocate recommended discharge, without probation and 
rehabilitation (P&R). The discharge authority approved the 
general discharge without P&R. 

 

The applicant was discharged, on 21 Dec 83, under the provisions 
of AFR 39-10, by reason of misconduct – pattern of discreditable 
involvement with military and civilian authorities, with service 
characterized as general (under honorable conditions). He was 
credited with 3 years, 10 months, and 10 days of active duty 
service. 

 

Pursuant to the Board’s request, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, Clarksburg, West Virginia, indicated based on 
data furnished; they are unable to locate an arrest record. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 

 

1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by 
existing law or regulations. 

 

2. The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the 
interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file. 

 

3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to 
demonstrate the existence of error or injustice. We took notice 
of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of 
the case; however, we find no evidence of an error or injustice 
that occurred during the discharge process. Based on the 
available evidence of record, it appears the discharge was 
consistent with the substantive requirements of the discharge 


regulation and within the commander's discretionary authority. 
The applicant has provided no evidence which would lead us to 
believe the characterization of the service was contrary to the 
provisions of the governing regulation, unduly harsh, or 
disproportionate to the offenses committed. The applicant 
provided a statement and extracts from his military personnel 
record in support of his appeal to have his discharge upgraded 
based on clemency; however, considering his overall record of 
service and the seriousness of the offenses which led to his 
administrative separation, we are not persuaded that an upgrade 
of the characterization of his discharge is warranted. 
Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find 
no basis upon which to recommend granting the relief sought. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: 

 

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not 
demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that 
the application was denied without a personal appearance; and 
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the 
submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered 
with this application. 

 

________________________________________________________________ 

 

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket 
Number BC-2010-04322 in Executive Session on 19 July 2011, under 
the provisions of AFI 36-2603: 

 

The following documentary evidence was considered: 

 

 Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 15 Nov 10, w/atchs. 

 Exhibit B. Applicant's Master Personnel Records. 

 

 

 

 

 Panel Chair 

 

 



Similar Decisions

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00231

    Original file (FD2006-00231.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In view of the foregoing findings, the Board further concludes that there exists no legal or equitable basis for upgrade of discharge, thus the applicant's discharge should not be changed. Specification: Did, at or near Kadena AB, Japan, on or about 2 Feb 94, steal a Promotion Fitness Examination sksix-b?-qk;-?k,, of a value less than $100.00, the property of SSgt Plea: Guilty. 24 Jun B4, Special Cou~t-Martial O s d e ~ ; 23 Feb 84, V e ~ b a l Counseling 2.

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00082

    Original file (FD2005-00082.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Prior Sv: (1) AFRes 21 Apr 81 - 9 Sep 81 (4 months 20 days) (Inactive). (Change Discharge to Honorable, and Change the Reason and Authority for Discharge) Issue 1: Unsubstantiated allegations. addition to military counsel, you have the right to employ civilian counsel.

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2006-00376

    Original file (FD2006-00376.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MD 20762-7WZ AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2006-00376 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable and to change the reenlistment code. (Change Discharge to Honorable, and Change the RE Code) ISSUES ATTACHED TO B R I E F . If you are discharged, you will be ineligible for reenlistment in the Air Force and any special pay, bonus, or education assistance funds may...

  • AF | DRB | CY2005 | FD2005-00151

    Original file (FD2005-00151.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    (Atch 3) - d. You were, at or near Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, on r 1999, derelict in your duties, in that you failed to follow instructions fiom SS You were instructed to go out to aircraft 787 to work on the left and right inboard torque beams, and also the right upper platty area per T.O. (Atch 7) h. You were, at or near Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, on divers occasions during the month of June 2001, derelict in your duties in that you failed to meet T.O. Letter of...

  • AF | DRB | CY2007 | FD2007-00016

    Original file (FD2007-00016.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDDLE INITIAL) GRADE AFSNISSAN AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD I I MEMBER SITTING HON I WTE agars, eogga GEN UOTHC I OTHER I DENY ................................. ISSUES A94.53 1NIIF.X NllMBEH A67.10 I HEARING DATE CASE NUMBER X EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO '(m BOARD I 1 I ORDER APPOINTINGTHE BOARD 1 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE 2 3 1 LETTER OF NOTIFICATION 1 4 1 BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE COUNSEL'S RELEASE TO THE BOARD ADDITIONAI, EX1...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00393

    Original file (FD2003-00393.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Advise applicant of the decision of the Board, the right to a personal appearance withlwithout counsel, and the right to submit an application to the AFBCMR T WEST, SUITE 40 AFB, TX 781504742 CE PERSONNEL COUNCIL 1535 COMMAND DQ EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS AFB, MD 20762-7002 AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE CASE NUMBER FD-2003-00393 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. The Board finds the applicant submitted no issues contesting the...

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2001-0494

    Original file (FD2001-0494.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE FD2001-0494 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of his Bad Conduct Discharge to Honorable. Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2001-0494 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD ee (Former AB) 1. The accused pleaded not guilty to the Specification of Charge II and Charge II which was withdrawn after arraignment.

  • AF | DRB | CY2002 | FD2002-0177

    Original file (FD2002-0177.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RECORD NAME OF SERVICE MEMBER (LAST, FIRST MIDIN.E ENITIAL) “ GRADE AFSN/SSAN ” AB tee = 7 - . CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE 1'1902-0177 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to Honorable. Major eh recommended that Senior Airman be fesued an under other than honorable conditions discharge without suspension for probation and rehabilitation (P & R)- After consulting legal counsel, Senior Airman QQ...

  • AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2003-00326

    Original file (FD2003-00326.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    ORDER APPOINTING THE BOARD APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF DISCHARGE LETTER OF NOTIFICATION BRIEF OF PERSONNEL FILE B/G [dy fe COUNSEL’S RELEASE TO THE BOARD CASE NUMBER FD-2003-00326 HEARING DATE 12 Nov 2003 Case heard at Washington, D.C. submit an application to the AFBCMR SIGNATURE OE SAF/MRBR 550 C STREET WEST, SUITE 40 RANDOLPH AFB, TX 78150-4742 RATIONAL ARE DISCUSSED ON THE ATTACHED AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS SUBMITTED AT TIME OF PERSONAL...

  • AF | DRB | CY2004 | FD2004-00255

    Original file (FD2004-00255.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE PERSONNEL COUNCIL AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 1535 COMMAND DR, EE WING, 3RD FLOOR ANDREWS APB, MD 20762-7002 AFHQ FORM 0-2077, JAN 00 (EF-V2) Previous edition will be used CASE NUMBER AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD DECISIONAL RATIONALE | pp-2994-00255 GENERAL: The applicant appeals for upgrade of discharge to honorable. Member received three Articles 15 and a Letter of Reprimand for misconduct. Member was age 19 to 23 when his.